ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7065 April 13, 1955 - TEOFILA S. TIBON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    096 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-7784 April 13, 1955 - NICOLAS ADANTE v. CANDIDO DAGPIN

    096 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-7904 April 14, 1955 - EDUARDO HILVANO v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ

    096 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-7851 April 15, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE JOSE P. VELUZ

    096 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-8183 April 15, 1955 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ v. HONORABLE AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    096 Phil 797

  • G.R. No. L-8316 April 15, 1955 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON

    096 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-7094 April 16, 1955 - JUANITA MIRANDA v. HON. JUDGE DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    096 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-7791 April 19, 1955 - LEE TAY & LEE CHAY v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS

    096 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-6871 April 20, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BANDALI TAGACAOLO

    096 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. L-7301 April 20, 1955 - TIU SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL.

    096 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. L-7318 April 20, 1955 - HELEN GENIO DE CHAVEZ v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.

    096 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-6508 April 25, 1955 - KOPPEL (PHIL) INC. v. EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    096 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-7076 April 28, 1955 - ROSARIO and UNTALAN v. CARANDANG ET AL.

    096 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-6469 April 29, 1955 - NAVARRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL and COURT OF APPEALS

    096 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-6740 April 29, 1955 - DIMAYUGA v. DIMAYUGA

    096 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-6752 April 29, 1955 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. FAUSTINO MANANSALA

    096 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. L-6972 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO SATURNINO

    096 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-7054 April 29, 1955 - UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    096 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. L-7541 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. LACSON ET AL.

    096 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. L-7550 April 29, 1955 - DONALD A. ROCCO v. MORTON MEADS

    096 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-7623 April 29, 1955 - FELICIDAD CASTAÑEDA v. BRUNA PESTAÑO

    096 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-7692 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE’S BANK & TRUST CO., v. HONORABLE RAMON R. SAN JOSE

    096 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-8107 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. HON. DE AQUINO ET AL.

    096 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-8348 April 29, 1955 - BAGTAS v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    096 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-6931 April 30, 1955 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. M. D. ANTIGUA

    096 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-7236 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Po GIOK TO

    096 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-7296 April 30, 1955 - PLASLU v. PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL.

    096 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-7390 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYES, ET AL.

    096 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-7561 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC, ET AL.

    096 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-7680 April 30, 1955 - TAN TONG v. DEPORTATION BOARD

    096 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-7830 Abril 30, 1955 - MANZA v. HON. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    096 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-8017 April 30, 1955 - MANSAL v. P. P. GOCHECO LUMBER CO.

    096 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-8278 April 30, 1955 - SUMAIL v. HON. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF COTABATO, ET AL

    096 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-8332 April 30, 1955 - JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO A. ARELLANO

    096 Phil 954

  • G.R. No. L-8909 Abril 30, 1955 - JOSE LAANAN v. EL ALCAIDE PROVINCIAL DE RIZAL

    096 Phil 959

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-6972   April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO SATURNINO<br /><br />096 Phil 868

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-6972. April 29, 1955.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAXIMO SATURNINO, Defendant-Appellant.

    Solicitor General Querube C. Makalintal and Solicitor Esmeraldo Umali for Appellee.

    Vicente Llanes and E. L. Peralta for Appellant.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; PLEA OF SELF-DEFENSE, WHEN NOT CONSIDERED. — The plea of self-defense is not taken, as it is clear that appellant is guilty of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, he having approached the deceased from behind and struck him, without previous warning or altercation, when deceased was engaged in a friendly conversation with other persons, and hence, could not have possibly defended himself or even tried to escape.

    2. ID.; ID.; PLEA OF GUILTY AND VOLUNTARY SURRENDER NOT TAKEN AS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. — Where it appears that the warrant of arrest was issued on May 20, 1952 or two days after the occurrence, that accused was not apprehended until June 3, 1952, and that the officers of the law had to look for him in order to detain him, and there has been actual arrest the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be invoked. Neither may appellant’s offer to plead guilty be considered as a mitigating circumstance, because said offer was qualified and he has committed a crime graver than that which he offered to admit.


    D E C I S I O N


    CONCEPCION, J.:


    It is an undisputed fact that, on May 18, 1952, between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m., defendant Maximo Saturnino struck Marcelino Valdez with a wooden club on the left side of the head, and that, as a consequence, Valdez sustained the following injuries:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(a) Wound, lacerated, head fronto-parietal region, left.

    "(b) Depressed fracture, head, fronto-parietal left." (Exhibit B, p. 1, Record of Exhibits).

    which produced "intracranial hemorrhage, acute, shock, moderate, paralysis, right half-body, cerebral concussion, acute, secondary," and caused his death a few minutes later. Saturnino claimed to have acted in self-defense, but their pretense was not sustained by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, which sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000, and to pay the costs. Hence, the appeal taken by said defendant.

    The only question for determination before us is whether or not his plea of self-defense has been established satisfactorily. In this connection, it appears that, at the time of the occurrence, Procesa Morales, Alipio Miguel and Gregorio Mateo were on board an autobus, parked between the Popular Bazaar and the Washington Bazaar at General Lewis Street, Laoag, Ilocos Norte. Gregorio Mateo was the driver, then in the corresponding seat, whereas Procesa Morales and Alipio Miguel were his passengers, then near Marcelino Valdez, who stood sidewise at the entrance of said vehicle, with the left foot on the floor thereof and the right foot on the ground. While Valdez was, according to Procesa Morales, Alipio Miguel and Gregorio Mateo, conversing and joking with them, in the aforementioned position, Maximo Saturnino came from behind Valdez and struck him with the club Exhibit A, which he (appellant) held with both hands and was wrapped in a newspaper.

    The defense does not even suggest that said witnesses for the prosecution had any possible motive to testify falsely against appellant herein. Indeed, their testimony merely confirms the affidavits (Exhibits 1, 1-B, 3, 3-C, 4 and 4-A) made by them before the justice of the peace of Laoag, immediately after the occurrence. Besides, the record shows that, sometime before the occurrence, Valdez had indicted physical injuries upon him. When Valdez tried to settle the matter amicably, appellant imposed certain conditions, which the former did not accept. As the chief of police intervened on behalf of Valdez, appellant refrained from instituting the corresponding criminal action, but, remarked that, if Valdez could not meet said terms, he (appellant) would try to get even with him. In other words, appellant had the motive to commit the crime charged.

    The defense tried to prove that as appellant walked past the space between the aforementioned autobus and the Washington Bazaar, Valdez accosted him (appellant) bolo in hand and asked: "Why are you trying to waylay me?" Although Saturnino denied the imputation, Valdez advanced towards him. Saturnino retreated, picked up a piece of wood he saw nearby and, with it, he struck Valdez when he gave a bolo thrust.

    We need not go into a detailed examination of this defense, which was sought to be established through the testimony of appellant and that of Dante Ildefonso and Rufino Mayor. Suffice it to say that, after a detailed analysis of the evidence for the defense, the same was found, in the decision appealed from, to be unworthy of credence, and that this finding should not be disturbed, for the lower court does not appear to have overlooked or misunderstood any fact of weight and importance in this case. Indeed, the bolo allegedly wielded by Valdez has not been introduced in evidence and was not seen either by the peace officer who repaired to the scene of the crime, immediately after its commission, or by any other impartial person. Moreover, Valdez had no reason whatsoever to attack appellant herein. In fact, the latter twice offered, in the lower court, to plead guilty of homicide, instead of murder. Surely, no such offers would have been made if the theory of the defense reflected the truth.

    It is clear, therefore, that appellant is guilty of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, he having approached Valdez from behind and struck him, without previous warning or altercation, when Valdez was engaged in a friendly conversation with other persons, and, hence, could not have possibly defended himself or even tried to escape. The lower court gave appellant the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the authorities, although there is no competent evidence thereon and it appears that, although the warrant of arrest was issued on May 20, 1952, or two days after the occurrence, he was not apprehended until June 3, 1952. Evidently, the officers of the law had to look for him in order to detain him. In the case of People v. Adlawan 1 (46 Off. Gaz., p. 4299) we said that "where there has been actual arrest the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be invoked." Neither may appellant’s offer to plead guilty be considered as a mitigating circumstance, because said offer was qualified (People v. Noble, 2 43 Off. Gaz, 2010) and he has committed a crime graver than that which he offered to admit.

    Being in accordance with the facts and the law, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, therefore, with costs against the defendant-appellant. So ordered.

    Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. 83 Phil., 194.

    2. 77 Phil., 99.

    G.R. No. L-6972   April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO SATURNINO<br /><br />096 Phil 868


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED